It does seem pretty ridiculous. Putting a hold on a large and out of character debit purchase makes sense as a customer protection measure, but I can't see how preventing a withdrawal when the account holder is there in person with ID improves security.

If they're worried about people with fake IDs trying to access accounts they could just require customers to set up security questions that they'd have to answer in the event of a large out of character withdrawal.

TuteTibiImperes:If they're worried about people with fake IDs trying to access accounts they could just require customers to set up security questions that they'd have to answer in the event of a large out of character withdrawal.

Mainly because attorneys have argued in court that if a bank doesn't try to stop Grandma from withdrawing her life savings and wiring it to her grandson in Costa Rica who got busted for DUI and lost his passport, well.....that's the banks fault and they need to reimburse Grandma.

unlikely:TuteTibiImperes: If they're worried about people with fake IDs trying to access accounts they could just require customers to set up security questions that they'd have to answer in the event of a large out of character withdrawal.

My credit union does this

My bank (efirstbank.com) does this... if I want to do a really big transaction, I need to call ahead to the phone people so they can note in my account, and they require my password to authorize it. Originally it was a high amount, but I asked them to change it to 1,000... so if anyone tries any shenanigans without pre-authorizing, the bank both denies the transaction and calls my cell phone automatically.

Here is a deposit slip for my new bank, the one down the street. Written on that slip is the amount of money I have in your bank, that will now be put into their bank. I'd like that in singles, please.

TuteTibiImperes:If they're worried about people with fake IDs trying to access accounts they could just require customers to set up security questions that they'd have to answer in the event of a large out of character withdrawal.

It seems likelier that they're worried of being accused of helping criminals launder money. Because HSBC has done that. A lot.

Clearly they've decided to protect themselves from further prosecution by restricting their money-laundering services to the few clients who have millions or billions of ill-gotten gains, and making a big show of being a pain in the ass to small-time criminals and, uh, . . . what do they call people who get their money honestly? "Saps", I suppose.

italie:Here is a deposit slip for my new bank, the one down the street. Written on that slip is the amount of money I have in your bank, that will now be put into their bank. I'd like that in singles, please.

When I worked as a Teller (at HSBC, actually) we had to fill out paperwork which we just referred to as the "Large Dollar" form when someone took out cash over a certain number or a bank check over a certain dollar amount. We needed ID, SS# and I think a reason for the withdrawal. We would never deny the withdrawal though, unless they refused to fill out the paperwork.

I wish I could remember the details (it's been over a decade) but I want to say it was over $5k in cash or $10k in a bank check. It was a federal law, not a bank one, and was intended to keep tabs on possible money laundering or something...

Fark. I remember so little of it this post is probably useless... sorry.

Mainly because attorneys have argued in court that if a bank doesn't try to stop Grandma from withdrawing her life savings and wiring it to her grandson in Costa Rica who got busted for DUI and lost his passport, well.....that's the banks fault and they need to reimburse Grandma.

That, and someone pretending to be the owner of a bank account and trying to empty it. People cry for more protection from theft and fraud, and then complain that the efforts to prevent theft and fraud are too burdensome? Ridiculous.

TFBank failure to show evidence is not a reason to refuse a withdrawal. We are writing to apologise to any customer who has been given incorrect information and inconvenienced."

That's cute.I assume the next time someone keeps a chunk of the bank's money by overdrawing their account, they can just write a letter of apology instead of paying interest on it and maybe even fees (depending on the level of suck-assness of the bank)?

/there should be articles using this behavior as proof that the bank is running out of cash

TuteTibiImperes:If they're worried about people with fake IDs trying to access accounts they could just require customers to set up security questions that they'd have to answer in the event of a large out of character withdrawal.

Doesn't need to worry about security questions involving large sums of cash:

unlikely:TuteTibiImperes: If they're worried about people with fake IDs trying to access accounts they could just require customers to set up security questions that they'd have to answer in the event of a large out of character withdrawal.

My credit union does this

Credit Unions for the win;

Bank Vs Credit UnionBank: Insufficient funds? $30 per transaction because you already don't have money so we will take more of what you don't have...Credit Union: Insufficient funds? It's ok! You have a $500 line of "credit" you owe back to yourself.

I work weekends as front desk/security at an upscale independent living retirement community. I used to get hang up calls every half hour about a year ago. When I *69'd the number (no caller ID at that time) I called it and got an automated system with no way to talk to an actual human, but I did get that it was HSBC. I googled them and got a couple of numbers and started calling. First time, I got some guy in a call center in India who told me his name was Chad. Yeah, right. He did promise to put a do not call notation next to our number.

Second time, after they kept doing the hang up calls, I got some guy in California who finally fessed up that they were collection calls but denied they were hang ups, stating it only sounded like it as it then went direct to him or his co-workers. I told him to stop lying, as it did not. The only way I got him was to google his company and start calling. I told him the person he was trying to reach never works on the weekends and that the hang up calls were interfering with a business. I told him they were to stop and stop now or my next call would be to our state atty. general who is hell on wheels against phone collection harassment. That woke them up and they stopped.

firefly212:unlikely: TuteTibiImperes: If they're worried about people with fake IDs trying to access accounts they could just require customers to set up security questions that they'd have to answer in the event of a large out of character withdrawal.

My credit union does this

My bank (efirstbank.com) does this... if I want to do a really big transaction, I need to call ahead to the phone people so they can note in my account, and they require my password to authorize it. Originally it was a high amount, but I asked them to change it to 1,000... so if anyone tries any shenanigans without pre-authorizing, the bank both denies the transaction and calls my cell phone automatically.

I dont have a problem with this as a voluntary restriction. In fact, that it is a good idea.

But the bank shouldn't need to know *why* you want the money. Only that you pre-authorise its withdrawal under specific conditions.

Its not the banks job to determine the legality of the use of the money once it has left their control.

Banks should and do keep track of movement of large amounts of currency already. And as such there will be records available if the authorities investigate wrongdoing.

If they specifically have cause to believe a customer is funding an illegal operation they shouldn't accept them as customers.

At the very least they should have at least warned the customer that the new policy was in place and added a pre authorization step that doesnt include a *why*.

Malacon:When I worked as a Teller (at HSBC, actually) we had to fill out paperwork which we just referred to as the "Large Dollar" form when someone took out cash over a certain number or a bank check over a certain dollar amount. We needed ID, SS# and I think a reason for the withdrawal. We would never deny the withdrawal though, unless they refused to fill out the paperwork.

I wish I could remember the details (it's been over a decade) but I want to say it was over $5k in cash or $10k in a bank check. It was a federal law, not a bank one, and was intended to keep tabs on possible money laundering or something...

Fark. I remember so little of it this post is probably useless... sorry.

You're talking about what is now called a Currency Transaction Report, for any transaction involving cash over 10,000.

You get name/business, social security number or tax ID, and a few other personal details. It's a federal law designed to prevent moneu laundering.

Some people/businesses can apply to be exempt from the requirements, but some businesses (car dealerships, restaurants, any industry that's been often used as a "front" for money laundering) can't.

There's also a Suspicious Activity Report that can involve any behavior or amount, but that's different.

This does not surprise me. HSBC is hands down the shiattiest retail bank ever. Unfortunately, since I have to do business in Hong Kong I have to deal with them. Americans atleast have some retail bank competition which is not available in a lot of countries.

They charge fees for everything (yes, sort of like US banks), but on top of that, their tellers and bank officers are for the most part - morons (straight outta college). I've gotten incorrect advice on so many things. Like how Americans can change their account to "joint" or add another party name to the account in pretty much one visit? HSBC required me to come in several times (each time screwing up the paperwork) and signing unbelievable amounts of documents. Eventually, we gave up.

Oh and god forbid you lose your atm card or forget your pin - that's another nightmare. And verifying who you are? Better make sure your signature is 100% correct (I've been forced to resign docs several times because the teller couldn't match my signature - in the US no one gives a shiat) and you bring 3 or more forms of ID.

Everyone in HK complains about HSBC. Sure, one could bank at Standard Chartered, but I'm gonna guess its the same issues and with even less ATM locations.